A false tax invoice shall not be eligible for deduction or refund of the input tax unless he/she fulfills his/her duty of care without fault.

A person who claims the deduction or refund of an input tax amount must prove that the person who received the supply was not negligent in knowing the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the other supplier did not know the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014 Doz. 1130 Requests for the revocation of non-deduction of purchase tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

December 11, 2014

on 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on April 9, 2013 against the Plaintiff on KRW 200, KRW 000 on the first-year value-added tax in 2010, KRW 000 on the second-year value-added tax in 2010, KRW 000 on the second-year value-added tax in 2010, and KRW 000 on the global income tax in 2010

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

From June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a person who runs a wholesale and retail business. B. The Plaintiff’s filing of the return

During the taxable period of value-added tax from 209 to 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of 000 won as indicated in the following table from 000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”) during the taxable period of value-added tax from 2009 to 2010. The Plaintiff actually supplied the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff is ParkBB, not the instant transaction party. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount according to the instant tax invoice from the Defendant, and included the value of supply according to the first and second tax invoice in the necessary expenses (including sales cost) in 2010. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax, including the Defendant’s value-added tax, was imposed on global income tax for 2010.

On April 9, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the increase and decrease of KRW 200 for the second term of 2009, KRW 000 for the first term of 2010, and KRW 000 for the second term of 2010 for the second term of 2010, and KRW 000 for the second term of 2010 for the global income tax (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”). The Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 for the lack of proof of global income tax for 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”). D.

On October 200, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against each of the dispositions of this case with the Tax Tribunal on October 1, 200, but was dismissed on October 0, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including numbers, and hereinafter the following)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not know that the supplier listed in the instant tax invoice differs from the actual supplier, and did not know that there was no negligence.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Determination

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the disguised name as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no negligence on the part of the purchaser, who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff only was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Therefore,

① Since the fact that the supply structure of the scrap metal industry is complicated and frequent, it is a social problem that the operator of the ordinary scrap metal wholesale retail business, it is necessary to pay a high level of attention to whether a scrap metal supplier is an actual supplier. In particular, the Plaintiff is in charge of the purchase of scrap metal from June 21, 2000 to his retirement, and since the Plaintiff operated the scrap metal retail business from June 21, 2005 to his retirement, it seems to have been well aware of the actual condition of the transactions ofless materials that are widely existing in the domestic scrap metal industry. ② The business registration certificate is merely a certificate verifying the registration of the business fact, and it is not recognized that the Plaintiff fulfilled the qualification or requirement to operate the business accordingly. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of due care necessary for the transaction solely on the ground that the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate or remitted the price to the account of a nominal supplier.

③ The Plaintiff, upon commencing the transaction with GG, remitted a large amount of money of KRW 300 million to the deposit account in the name of JungCC, which is the representative, and the Plaintiff also recognized that ParkB, who was engaged in the actual transaction with the Plaintiff, did not verify it through objective evidence, such as identification card.

④ On August 3, 2012, ParkB stated to the effect that, upon receiving an investigation from a tax official with respect to a suspicion of an offense against value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “investigation of an offense”), the Plaintiff was aware that it was the actual president from the time when the transaction was commenced in the name of GG, and that, upon receiving money from the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the deposit account came to be CC and that, upon receiving money from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff started transactions with the Plaintiff. On August 9, 2012, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that, upon receiving an investigation of a suspicion of an offense, the Plaintiff would have been aware that it would be the business partner that he/she carries on his/her business from around 200 to ○○.”

On the other hand, on the other hand, on July 11, 2013 and September 30, 2013, ParkB made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that "the Plaintiff was investigating a witness on the case under the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant tax invoice, and that "the Plaintiff was making a transaction knowing that he was the actual business operator," and reversed the statement at the time of investigation into the crime charge. However, there is no motive to make a false statement as to whether the Plaintiff was aware of the fact of violation at the time of investigation into the crime charge, and at the time of investigation into the witness, there is a possibility that the Plaintiff reversed the statement at the time of investigation into the crime charge to prevent the Plaintiff from being subject to criminal punishment due to his transaction with the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff at the time of investigation.

⑤ On August 3, 2012, ParkB made a statement to the effect that ParkB’s investigation was conducted on the charge of committing a crime, and that ParkB started transactions by being aware of the Plaintiff through Bob○○○○, and that EE, an operator of Bob○○○, was aware of the fact that ParkB actually was in charge of scrap metal transactions.

(6) The Plaintiff asserted that GG’s actual business operator became aware of ParkBB as not ParkCC, only on June 30, 2010. However, on May 18, 2010, the Plaintiff was granted a right to collateral security of KRW 350 million with respect to the real estate owned by ParkB as the debtor, who is not the representative of GGG, and ParkB as the representative of GG, set up a right to collateral security of KRW 30 million with respect to the said real estate. On the same day, ParkB, and HH was issued a promissory note with the joint issuer, the Plaintiff as the addressee, and a promissory note with respect to the said promissory note, which was issued at the face value of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 for which the said issuer and the Plaintiff were responsible for compulsory execution on commission, and that a promissory note was written to the effect that ○○○’s business operator had not been operating 200,010,000.

(8) On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion against the instant tax invoice by the ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office. However, the disposition of non-suspect is not recognized as being issued without the Plaintiff’s knowledge on the ground that the Plaintiff was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant tax invoice was issued with the knowledge that it was false, and it is not subject to the determination of the disposition of non-guilty suspicion. In light of the fact that whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was false, the disposition of non-suspect cannot be deemed to have proved that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was not negligent in, the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of, the fact that the instant tax invoice was not false due to the disposition of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.